A G Rudd1, A Hoffman, P Irwin, D Lowe, M G Pearson. 1. Stroke Programme, Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit, Royal College of Physicians London, Guys and St Thomas' Hospitals NHS Trust London. anthony.rudd@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke unit care is one of the most powerful interventions available to help stroke patients. There are limited data available to assess the impact of stroke units in routine clinical practice outside randomized clinical trials. This article uses data from the 2001 to 2002 National Stroke Audit to assess the effectiveness of stroke unit care in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland in delivering effective processes of care and in reducing case fatality and disability. METHODS: An observational study of the organization, structure, process of care, and outcomes for stroke in 2001. Case fatality after stroke in England was compared using data from the audit and routinely collected data from the Department of Health. 240 hospitals (196 Trusts) from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland took part in the 2001 to 2002 National Stroke Audit, a response rate of >95%. These sites assessed a total of 8200 patients using the Royal College of Physicians Intercollegiate Working Party Stroke Audit Tool. RESULTS: The availability of stroke unit care varies hugely across the country. Case fatality after stroke was higher in Trusts with least availability of stroke unit care. These differences persisted after control for case mix. The process of care was better for patients managed on stroke units compared with other settings. Overall, the risk of death for patients who received stroke unit care was estimated to be approximately 75% that of the risk for those having no stroke unit care (95% CI, 60 to 90). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke unit care as provided in routine clinical practice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland reduces case fatality by approximately 25%, which is in line with the figures obtained from systematic analysis of stroke unit trial data.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Stroke unit care is one of the most powerful interventions available to help strokepatients. There are limited data available to assess the impact of stroke units in routine clinical practice outside randomized clinical trials. This article uses data from the 2001 to 2002 National Stroke Audit to assess the effectiveness of stroke unit care in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland in delivering effective processes of care and in reducing case fatality and disability. METHODS: An observational study of the organization, structure, process of care, and outcomes for stroke in 2001. Case fatality after stroke in England was compared using data from the audit and routinely collected data from the Department of Health. 240 hospitals (196 Trusts) from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland took part in the 2001 to 2002 National Stroke Audit, a response rate of >95%. These sites assessed a total of 8200 patients using the Royal College of Physicians Intercollegiate Working Party Stroke Audit Tool. RESULTS: The availability of stroke unit care varies hugely across the country. Case fatality after stroke was higher in Trusts with least availability of stroke unit care. These differences persisted after control for case mix. The process of care was better for patients managed on stroke units compared with other settings. Overall, the risk of death for patients who received stroke unit care was estimated to be approximately 75% that of the risk for those having no stroke unit care (95% CI, 60 to 90). CONCLUSIONS:Stroke unit care as provided in routine clinical practice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland reduces case fatality by approximately 25%, which is in line with the figures obtained from systematic analysis of stroke unit trial data.
Authors: S D Shani; Ravi Prasad Varma; Sankara P Sarma; R S Sreelakshmi; Ramachandran Harikrishnan; V Raman Kutty; P N Sylaja Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Extra Date: 2022-07-06
Authors: Paul McElwaine; Joan McCormack; Michael McCormick; Anthony Rudd; Carmel Brennan; Heather Coetzee; Paul E Cotter; Rachel Doyle; Anne Hickey; Frances Horgan; Cliona Loughnane; Chris Macey; Paul Marsden; Dominick McCabe; Riona Mulcahy; Imelda Noone; Emer Shelley; Tadhg Stapleton; David Williams; Peter Kelly; Joseph Harbison Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2017-03-30
Authors: Christian Mpody; Jerry Cui; Hamdy Awad; Sujatha Bhandary; Michael Essandoh; Ronald L Harter; Joseph D Tobias; Olubukola O Nafiu Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Doreen Busingye; Monique F Kilkenny; Tara Purvis; Joosup Kim; Sandy Middleton; Bruce C V Campbell; Dominique A Cadilhac Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hye-Yeon Choi; Joo Hyun Seo; Jae Hoon Yang; Young Dae Kim; Yo Han Jung; Han Jin Cho; Hyo Suk Nam; Ji Hoe Heo Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Melanie Turner; Mark Barber; Hazel Dodds; Martin Dennis; Peter Langhorne; Mary Joan Macleod Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 10.154